Article <77orljlddqdvdtapmb1qji6jfqr3balvup@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<77orljlddqdvdtapmb1qji6jfqr3balvup@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ool - out at first base?
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:53:13 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 53
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <77orljlddqdvdtapmb1qji6jfqr3balvup@4ax.com>
References: <nmdfljll8c8tokl1upfn7mbt4vjd7f0do5@4ax.com> <vjak6b$16l6r$1@dont-email.me> <vjhjul$3fj8c$1@dont-email.me> <d9754db8-9c88-40c4-8376-162d08f2f7d5@gmail.com> <vjj5q5$3scn7$1@dont-email.me> <ghgqljhmg67bcn07hr65h7el42s8bcr39a@4ax.com> <vjjoip$3vd3m$1@dont-email.me> <8gqqljd2at10o4dc137avfugiscjg91g7g@4ax.com> <vjjs8c$1cp$1@dont-email.me> <vjkbdv$s6u8$2@solani.org> <ccc86f59-dbde-4ece-83b6-ef1e614fac67@gmail.com> <s8hrlj52876dfca4b0k4e6nauqf9hbdqrr@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="72849"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2u7n+WuzKcqSRWx1XvFJBt8ZghE=
Bytes: 4997

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 17:52:14 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:46:26 -0800, erik simpson
><eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12/14/24 8:23 AM, DB Cates wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-14 6:04 a.m., MarkE wrote:
>>> [big snip]
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> Christian de Duve put it this way: "Science is based on the working 
>>>> hypothesis that things are naturally explainable. This may or may not 
>>>> be true. But the only way to find out is to make every possible effort 
>>>> to explain things naturally. Only if one fails - assuming failure can 
>>>> ever be definitely established - would be entitled to state that what 
>>>> one is studying is not naturally explainable."
>>>>
>>>> That seems close what to what I'm proposing. Thoughts?
>>>>
>>> For argument's sake, let's say that is true.
>>> Now, how do you get from 'OoL is supernatural' to the Christian god or 
>>> indeed any god at all? I suppose we could call it the 'god of OoL' but 
>>> now what else do we know about this 'god'?
>>> 
>>If it's explainable, there's little difference between invoking god(s) 
>>or looking for natural causes.  Many scientists believe in god, and 
>>you're in good company with Issac Newton, probably the best physicist 
>>who ever lived. He explained things that many believed inexplicable.
>
>According to MarkE's logic he shouldn't have bothered trying to
>explain them in the first place because nobody been able to explain
>them over thousands of years so they had to be inexplicable by natural
>means and therefore had to be supernatural!
>
I.e., the same class of "logic" propounded by a (thankfully
long absent) poster here who insisted that people today are
more intelligent than those in ancient Egypt, because we
have cell phones and they didn't.

(Actually, I'm tempted to argue the opposite, after watching
various "cellphone zombies" start to walk into traffic...)
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov